Rick Santorum

Erth said:

From the New Hampshire Primary 2012 debate:

Rick Santorum's Response Regarding Gay Rights During the Republican New Hampshire Debate - YouTube

Click to expand...

interesting...i must have missed that question when i saw the debate.

SmellsLikeCurlyFries said:

Actually, he's got a good point. No matter how ticked off at Obama people are, I highly doubt Santorum could beat him, mainly because Santorum takes all the progress of the last 200+ years and throws it all out the window, then revisits the horrors of Medieval Christian theocracy.

Click to expand...

Let's examine that then. Here are the choices:

A. A man who professes belief in God ... whose vices are consolidation of wealth and power ... who speaks only after his handlers approve the message.

B. A man who professes belief in God ... whose major vice is womanizing ... who speaks his heart and mind with conviction.

C. A man who professes belief in God ... whose vice is suggesting that some morality needs to be legislated ... who speaks his heart and mind with conviction.

D. A man who professes belief in God ... whose vice is that no morality should be legislated and no drug laws ... who speaks his heart and mind with conviction.

Here are the candidates: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Ron Paul.


Questions?

NightHawkeye said:

Questions?

Click to expand...

Yes, actually, enumerated below with a bit more accuracy outside personal bias

A. A man who professes belief in God ... whose vices are consolidation of wealth and power ... who speaks only after his handlers approve the message.

Click to expand...

A. A man who professes belief in G-d who has demonstrated quite well that he would be an excellent pick to fix the economy, as well as a popular choice to beat Obama.

B. A man who professes belief in God ... whose major vice is womanizing ... who speaks his heart and mind with conviction.

Click to expand...

B. A man who professes belief in G-d but also belief in establishing a colony on the moon, to be made into a state at a later date, who expresses a racially charged distaste for the social safety net and is seen as the best debater to challenge Barack Obama.

C. A man who professes belief in God ... whose vice is suggesting that some morality needs to be legislated ... who speaks his heart and mind with conviction.

Click to expand...

C. A man who professes belief in G-d and also suggests legislating ALL Christian morality out of one side of his mouth, while the other side suggests that he'll do whatever it takes for power, even if that means selling out his own alleged "principles" like being pro-life and "limited government" to allow pro-Obama, pro-choice, pro-government figures like Arlen Specter to be elected, in addition to constantly voting for big government and massive spending.

D. A man who professes belief in God ... whose vice is that no morality should be legislated and no drug laws ... who speaks his heart and mind with conviction.

Click to expand...

D. A man who professes belief in G-d and has spent the last 30+ years never flinching from his principles like the other three and always votes for limited government, personal liberty, sound economics, and the Constitution, even if that means losing followers or being hated, who is the only one that has actually remained true to his word through his entire political career.

Here are the candidates: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Ron Paul.


Questions?

Btodd said:

The GOP field is like a game of Roulette. Just bet on crazy, and you're bound to hit it big. I love it...keep this rotating 'top candidate' stuff going for as long as possible. It only benefits Obama in the long run.

Btodd

Click to expand...

Equally frightening and amusing is the Orwellean way in which the support seems retroactive. "I support Santorum. I have always supported him. I was never a Gingrich supporter! Those posts by me saying I was are lies!"

zoink said:

I was just a little taken aback as I've never encountered someone who didn't think that forcefully entering a person's domicile, subduing, and confining them was a violent act. I've run across many people that have made fantastic arguments that it is a legitimate use of violence, just never someone willing to plant a flag on it not being violence. That's just my anecdotal experience though. Maybe there's a massive group of people who don't consider such things violence that's I'm just not aware of. Thankfully I've never encountered those people in person, as having to constantly repair my door would be rather annoying.

I was purposefully being diplomatic with "threat of violence." Some people don't consider there to be a difference between the threat of violence and violence.

The World Health Organization defines violence as:
"the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

As we can see in the instance of someone kicking in one's door and dragging one to a cage we have multiple violations.

The Online Etymology Dictionary defines violence as:
"physical force used to inflict injury or damage,"

So we have kicking in the door at a minimum for damage. Being forced into a cage causes both injury and damage.

If we refer to the Merriam-Webster on Violent:
1. marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity

Violence:
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force

Synonyms: force

In the end you are not the arbiter of definitions. You have the same amount of authority as I do to define words. You can say water isn't wet, you can call violence "crème brûlée" if you want. I never intend to advocate that aggression, force, violence or "crème brûlée" be initiated against anyone.

Click to expand...

lmbo This actually reminds me of children who are asked to do something, and scream, "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!!!!"

Did I ever say I was "the arbiter of definitions?" No. But what I AM saying is that you're exaggerating and attempting to mislead.

As I've already explained, YOU brought up an emotionally-charged word "violence," and used it outside of its normal usage to suggest that caring for the poor with tax revenue is done through violence. Or "the threat of violence," whatever nonsense you're trying to use. When you're called out on it and asked to explain, you whine about how I'm not the arbiter of definitions. Nice try, but that's not a way to crawl out of the hole you dug for yourself.

Thanks for posting those links, and trying to apply them to your case, because they do an excellent job at proving my point. You, sir, are grossly exaggerating, and they don't fit. You have to resort to imagined, nightmarish scenarios of kicking in doors, and being "thrown" into cells in order to even make your point remotely relevant. Poor doors. Any meaningful use of "violence" that I've ever seen implies the use or fear of physical injury against the person. If it doesn't, then you come up with grossly overbroad, and absurd consequences.

I bit pretty hard into a carrot stick. That was violence.
I pressed the button on my remote control pretty hard. That was violence.
I suddenly, and intensely walked by someone on the sidewalk today. That was violence.

Appeal to the World Health Organization, and see if they buy your argument against this terribly, violent IRS.

Your "threat of violence" argument miiiiight be relevant if it weren't for the simple fact that doing so would be illegal at most, and would cause an uproar at the least. If actual physical injury results from the police because of a tax evasion arrest, there is guaranteed to be a lawsuit, and firings or suspensions over it. Fortunately, we have standards in this society. Even though we're dirty tax proponents.

The same parchment that was used to legitimize slavery for over a hundred years? Yeah, I have some problems with it.

Click to expand...

Aaah, yes. The good ole' appeal to slavery, which is what fringe folks like yourself love to use to scoff at the Constitution. Laughably, the same folks who often love to use Revolutionary War imagery *ahem*, and appeals to the Founding Fathers, etc. Yeah, that good ole' nasty "parchment," huh?

Ok, first of all, where, in the Constitution, does it explicitly grant the power to hold slaves? You could argue it doesn't forbid it so it's fine, but um....it doesn't exactly forbid killing one's neighbor, either. The closest thing you have is the "3/5ths Clause," which the Founding Fathers used as a weak compromise to pay it lip service. They didn't even have the heart to justify it enough to use the word "slaves." You can't compare slavery in the Constitution to the explicit right of Congress to levy taxes for the general welfare.

Second of all, ironically, the people who tried to defend slavery usually used a justification that doesn't sound very far away from a certain argument I've been hearing in this thread. "The government is trying to tell us what to do, and threatening our property rights, and threatening us with violence!! Just to say they're trying to look after folks who are less fortunate!!"


Here's the bottom line. The fact that you would try to appeal to imagery of violence, and then even true-blue human slavery to defend your position that caring for the poor with some tax revenue is despicable. Stop the madness. You obviously don't see the massive disconnect, and I thank the Good Lord everyday that it's extremely rare that I encounter people who would rather plunge a society of over 300 million people into the dark ages by presumably doing away with taxes, and social programs.

And by the way, I won't have the time to log onto CF for the next 3 weeks or so, so I won't be reading anymore of your nonsense for at least that time. Goodbye.

NightHawkeye said:

Let's examine that then. Here are the choices:

A. A man who professes belief in God ... whose vices are consolidation of wealth and power ... who speaks only after his handlers approve the message.

B. A man who professes belief in God ... whose major vice is womanizing ... who speaks his heart and mind with conviction.

C. A man who professes belief in God ... whose vice is suggesting that some morality needs to be legislated ... who speaks his heart and mind with conviction.

D. A man who professes belief in God ... whose vice is that no morality should be legislated and no drug laws ... who speaks his heart and mind with conviction.

Here are the candidates: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Ron Paul.


Questions?

Click to expand...

Santorum and Gingrich are just as phony as Romney. They don't speak their heart and mind with conviction, they say what they think voters want to hear in order to advance their political careers.

You can see it right in that video of Santorum speaking on gay rights someone just posted. The things Santorum says about gays and contraceptives on a debate stage in socially libertarian New Hampshire are very different from what he says speaking to an Evangelical audience in a church in Iowa or Minnesota.

Defensor Fidei said:

Santorum and Gingrich are just as phony as Romney. They don't speak their heart and mind with conviction, they say what they think voters want to hear in order to advance their political careers.

You can see it right in that video of Santorum speaking on gay rights someone just posted. The things Santorum says about gays and contraceptives on a debate stage in socially libertarian New Hampshire are very different from what he says speaking to an Evangelical audience in a church in Iowa or Minnesota.

Click to expand...

So ... you don't like his stand with Israel ... against Iran?

NightHawkeye said:

So ... you don't like his stand with Israel ... against Iran?

Click to expand...

Absolutely NOT. Santorum would have us at war with Iran and the rest of the Muslim world within two months of his inauguration, despite the fact that all the experts disagree with such an action.

Also, Prime Minister Netanyahu got up before Congress last fall and said, "My friends, you don't need to do nation-building in Israel. We're already built. You don't need to export democracy to Israel, we've already got it. And you don't need to send American troops to Israel, we defend ourselves."

So no, I don't agree with Santorum. If Israel wants to handle their problems on their own, we should respect that and let them handle it. Santorum just wants us to keep playing both sides of the fence (which is NOT supporting Israel) and continue telling them what to do and when to do it.

NightHawkeye said:

So ... you don't like his stand with Israel ... against Iran?

Click to expand...

No, I don't...why?

NightHawkeye said:

So ... you don't like his stand with Israel ... against Iran?

Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet most Americans aren't in the mood for another useless pre-emptive war because of some as of yet imaginary WMD's.

all of the republican candidates except for paul seem trigger happy...

Ortho_Cat said:

all of the republican candidates except for paul seem trigger happy...

Click to expand...

"Trigger happy" may not be a completely accurate assessment. Even Ron Paul agrees that Muslim extremists have a vendetta against the United States. Ron Paul's difference from the other candidates is stating openly that the US precipitated the hostility ... and he cites history to support his assertion.

Further, Ron Paul posits that bringing our troops home will end the hostilities. The other candidates don't believe that. In particular, Gingrich and Santorum assert that abandoning Israel will precipitate disaster in the region.

Here are the candidates:
STAR WARS bar scene ...lol - YouTube

variant said:

I'd be willing to bet most Americans aren't in the mood for another useless pre-emptive war because of some as of yet imaginary WMD's.

Click to expand...

Many would be more than happy to fight another war if it is perceived to help Israel.

NightHawkeye said:

"Trigger happy" may not be a completely accurate assessment. Even Ron Paul agrees that Muslim extremists have a vendetta against the United States. Ron Paul's difference from the other candidates is stating openly that the US precipitated the hostility ... and he cites history to support his assertion.

Further, Ron Paul posits that bringing our troops home will end the hostilities. The other candidates don't believe that. In particular, Gingrich and Santorum assert that abandoning Israel will precipitate disaster in the region.

Click to expand...

The region would swallow up Israel and that would be that.

Autumnleaf said:

The region would swallow up Israel and that would be that.

Click to expand...

Israel fought several countries far more developed than she was without any help from any other country before. If they could do it then, before they became a world power, they can certainly do it now.

sea oat said:

Ok, first of all, where, in the Constitution, does it explicitly grant the power to hold slaves? You could argue it doesn't forbid it so it's fine, but um....it doesn't exactly forbid killing one's neighbor, either. The closest thing you have is the "3/5ths Clause," which the Founding Fathers used as a weak compromise to pay it lip service. They didn't even have the heart to justify it enough to use the word "slaves." You can't compare slavery in the Constitution to the explicit right of Congress to levy taxes for the general welfare.

Click to expand...

Fugative slave clause.
Article Four of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tax on imported slaves not to exceed $10.
Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Section 9, Clause 1).

Autumnleaf said:

Many would be more than happy to fight another war if it is perceived to help Israel.

Click to expand...

I see what you did there. Variant said "most", and I agree, you could find > 200 million Americans not interested in the war, and Autumnleaf said many, so he is right to, I am sure you could find 1000 people that would fight in the war.

Autumnleaf said:

The region would swallow up Israel and that would be that.

Click to expand...